Cognitive Neuroscience: What? Another journal?

Abstract

Yes, another journal! The field of cognitive neuroscience continues to grow and mature, and it is important that publishing outlets continue to grow and mature in order to support the increasing volume of high-quality research. However, it is our intention that Cognitive Neuroscience will offer something genuinely different in terms of content and publishing standards. This editorial sets out the ethos behind the journal and presents some publishing statistics on our first year.

THE TYPES OF ARTICLE WE PUBLISH

The journal publishes two main types of paper: short empirical reports (around 4000 words, including references) and discussion papers (around 8000 words, excluding references). Discussion papers are accompanied by 5–10 short commentaries and a response from the author(s). We have no ideological objection to longer empirical reports. It was our judgment that there are an adequate number of outlets already for longer articles but a more pressing need for journals concentrating on short empirical reports that can be turned around relatively quickly.

The short empirical reports are expected to be methodologically rigorous and have a clear rationale and interpretation. Excellence is the main criterion. The research is also expected to add something to the current body of knowledge in the area. We don't seek to reject papers on the criterion of “lack of interest to a wider scientific community”. Such judgments are very difficult to make and can often be short-sighted. We have recently been reminded that the discovery of mirror neurons was turned down by Nature due to “lack of general interest” (Rizzolatti & Fabbri-Destro, 2010).

There are some high-ranking journals publishing excellent review papers, but there is very little scope for published discussion in many of these journals. Rival ideas get published by separate camps in separate review papers over a protracted length of time. These camps may or may not cite each other's work. Some of these review papers allow a response, but this occurs by an invitation from the editor. Our discussion papers are similar to review papers in that they do not present new empirical data but rather synthesize a large body of research within a common theory. They differ from review papers in that we expect the content of the paper to be thought-provoking or controversial, with potential for discussion. However, we are not seeking controversy for the sake of controversy; the paper must be thoroughly researched and evidence-based. Each discussion paper is sent to a list of potential commentators that includes researchers selected by the author and editor, and there is an open call to any researchers who have asked to be on our database of commentators. Thus, commentaries not only come from the leading experts in the field but can come from new researchers for which this may be their first ever publication. In the first volume, we published three excellent discussion papers on “Do we have independent visual streams for perception and action?” (Schenk & McIntosh, 2010); the role of the prefrontal cortex in analogical reasoning (Speed, 2010); and ‘How neuroscience will change our view on consciousness’ (Lamme, 2010).

FROM SUBMISSION TO PUBLICATION

Before being assigned to an Action Editor, the manuscript is checked by the Editor to verify that the content is appropriate to the journal and that the article is in the correct format (e.g., within the word limit). The Editor is not attempting to make quality judgments at this preliminary stage. Some 15% of submissions were rejected at this stage, thus far. The Editor selects the Action Editor and the Action Editor selects the reviewers. Both selection processes try to take account of the preferences of the author. For short reports we explicitly ask reviewers to write short reviews to speed up the review process. Reviewers are given up to four weeks to respond. For those articles sent to review, the median time from submission to first decision was 45 days thus far (range = 14–115 days). Decisions significantly longer than the median are almost always because a reviewer has failed to deliver and an alternative reviewer has to be found. Commentaries are handled differently (as editorial material, not peer-reviewed) and decisions are normally made within two weeks of the call deadline.

If a short empirical report requires a significant amount of further data collection it is rejected at this stage. If it requires a reanalysis of the data then it may or may not be rejected (depending on the overall quality), but will go back to one of the reviewers. Our current acceptance rates are as follows: short empirical reports, 42%; discussion papers, 27%; and commentaries, 55%. Thus, most submissions to the journal are not published at present.

Upon acceptance, it is our aim to publish articles online within five working days (this was introduced in August 2010) and, in final format, within six weeks. Articles published online within five working days consist of the accepted, but uncorrected, manuscript. It appears in html rather than pdf format. In order to achieve this, we require authors to sign the copyright declaration form promptly. Authors who do not wish an uncorrected form of the paper to appear online can request this upon acceptance. Only one form of the paper will be online at any time. Within six weeks of acceptance the article will be copyedited (e.g., to check spelling, missing references) and typeset, the proofs sent to the author for approval/amendment, and then published online in its final form as a pdf file. So far, the vast majority of submissions have appeared online in final format within six weeks of acceptance.

Another attractive publishing feature of the journal is that we do not have any page charges for authors or any charges for essential colour printing. Authors who wish to make their articles open access can do so, although this does incur a fee.

THE METHODS WE PUBLISH

One of the best things about the journal, in my opinion, is the simple name Cognitive Neuroscience, which is well understood and requires no elaboration from me (although Ward, 2010 provides an accessible introduction). Cognitive neuroscience, as a field, encompasses a wide range of methods including TMS, EEG, patient-based neuropsychology, and structural and functional imaging. All of these methods are well represented in our first volume. There is, however, one method that has an uncertain status in the field and perhaps requires some comment; namely, behavioral studies.

Although cognitive neuroscience owes much of its intellectual roots to cognitive psychology, it has been argued by some that brain-based evidence can't adjudicate between cognitive theories and behavioral evidence can't adjudicate between brain-based accounts (e.g., Coltheart, 2004). One common analogy is that between software (cognition) and hardware (brain) that are regarded as independent from each other. Another objection is that methods such as fMRI tell us where cognition occurs and not how. However, nobody would argue that reaction time studies tell us when cognition happens and not how; this confuses the data (the when and where) with the theory—the how (Henson, 2005). Nor is it obvious where to draw the line between behavioral studies and other kinds of data such as GSR (galvanic skin response), or eye movements. Do these methods take us closer to the brain than traditional measures of behavior? These issues are not straightforward; rather than take a strong position we take a more open approach and are willing to publish behavioral studies.

To give one example close to my own area of research, Serino, Padiglioni, Haggard, and Ladavas (2009) conducted a behavioral study in which visual stimuli denoting different body parts (foot, hand) were presented while participants received tactile stimulation on their foot, hand, or face. Viewing the foot enhanced tactile sensitivity to the foot only, whereas viewing the hand enhanced tactile sensitivity to both the hand and face. The latter was explained in terms of the anatomical closeness of hand and face regions in primary somatosensory cortex. Although the only data in this study are behavioral, the only reasonable explanation is brain-based. Moreover, not only can be predictions be made about where the effect is likely to be (primary somatosensory cortex, rather than secondary somatosensory cortex), but the nature of the neuronal interactions can also be inferred (i.e. facilitatory rather than inhibitory). Another example, from this journal, would be the use of brief lateralized visual presentation of stimuli to the left or right hemisphere (Motyka-Joss & Virtue, 2010). This is a purely behavioral study but it clearly speaks to brain-based accounts of cognition. Other examples may be less clear-cut than this, but the only point I wish to make here is that behavioral studies can make contact with brain-based accounts and, as such, Cognitive Neuroscience is willing to publish them.

In summary, it is early days for this journal but a very promising start. We hope to build on these foundations and turn it into a key outlet to showcase new research in the field.